APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON.

No. 19. Argued January 4, 7, 1952 -- Decided
April 28, 1952

Seeking to restrain alleged violations of §§ 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act, the United States brought this suit against the
Oregon State Medical Society, eight county medical societies, a
doctor-sponsored corporation engaged in the sale of prepaid
medical care, and eight doctors who were officers in those
organizations. The complaint charged that they conspired to
restrain and monopolize the business of providing prepaid medical
care in Oregon and conspired to restrain competition between
doctor-sponsored prepaid medical plans within the State. After a
trial, the District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground
that the Government had failed to prove its charges.

2. Rule 52 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which
provides that, where an action is tried by a court without a
jury, "findings of fact shall not be set aside unless
clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the
opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of
witnesses," is peculiarly applicable in a case, such as
this, where the complaining party creates a vast record of
cumulative evidence as to long-past transactions, motives and
purposes, the effect of which depends largely on credibility of
witnesses. P. 332.

3. In an action under the Sherman Act for an injunction, the
sole function of which is to forestall future violations, an
examination of evidence relating to long-past transactions is
justified only when it illuminates or explains the present and
predicts the shape of things to come. Pp. 332-333.

4. Conduct which had been discontinued seven years previously,
in the absence of a threat or likelihood of its resumption, does
not warrant the issuance of an injunction. Pp. 332-334.

5. The Government having failed to prove a concerted refusal
by the defendant doctors to deal with private health
associations, it is unnecessary here to decide whether that would
violate the antitrust laws. Pp. 334-336.

(a) where the historic direct relationship between physician
and patient is involved, there are ethical considerations which
are quite different from the usual considerations prevailing in
ordinary commercial matters. P. 336.

6. The trial court's refusal to find that the defendants had
conspired to restrain or monopolize the business of prepaid
medical care was not clearly erroneous. Pp. 336-337.

7. The trial court's finding that the sale of medical services
by the doctor-sponsored organizations, as conducted in Oregon,
did not constitute interstate commerce was not clearly erroneous;
and the agreement between them not to compete did not fall within
the prohibitions of the Sherman Act. American
Medical Assn. v. United States, 317 U.S. 519,
distinguished. Pp. 337-339.

8. A finding which, in the light of the record, does not leave
the reviewing court with any "definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed," is not "clearly
erroneous." P. 339.